Appeal 3287833

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was amended following submission of the application; I have utilised the amended description.

The Appellant indicated on their appeal form that they wished for this appeal to be linked to another appeal relating to refusal of planning permission for a similar scheme at the same site (APP/D3640/D/21/3276925). At the time the current appeal had been submitted, the previous appeal had been active for some time and it was therefore not possible to link the two. The previous appeal was dismissed on 30 November 2021.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and, • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring property; specifically the occupants of the property known as [address].

Wychwood is a modestly proportioned dwelling, which is part of a semi-detached pair with [address]. It is located within a residential area which is characterised by a mix of house types and styles. It is situated at the edge of the built envelope of the settlement and its rear garden bounds open countryside. The appeal proposal seeks to demolish the existing detached single-storey single garage at the side of the house and construct a two-storey side and rear extension. The existing garage is a low profile utilitarian building which does not have a prominent presence within, nor make a positive contribution to, the streetscene.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) advises that extensions should be subservient to the main building and maintain its design. In order to achieve this subservience, the RDG advises that extensions are set-back from the front elevation and set-down in height from the main roof. The appeal proposal complies with the RDG in this respect. The extension would be wider than the existing house, although this would not appear disproportionate when viewed from the front due to its set-down and set-back, as well as its detailed design and siting away from the boundary.

However, the two storey extension would be much deeper than the original house and would project far beyond the rear elevation. Despite commendable attempts to articulate its design by including a small lean-to roof at ground floor level, it would nonetheless result in a disproportionate, massive elevation with an excessive depth which would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. Moreover, the extension would be a prominent feature in the streetscene, especially when viewed from the nearby junction with [address]. It would also appear disproportionate to the shallower depth of the surrounding dwellings, [address] and [address].

Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies (CS), adopted in 2012, policies 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan (NP), made in 2018, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other things, to secure high-quality design which respects local character.

The proposed two storey rear extension is deep and would significantly project from the rear wall of the host dwelling. However, it would be set away from the rear first floor window at [address] and that window would continue to receive a good level of sunlight and daylight. It would also continue to benefit from its open, sunny outlook to the northwest. The appeal proposal would not, therefore, unduly affect living conditions at the neighbouring property [address] due to overshadowing or loss of natural light. The appeal proposal therefore complies with policy DM9 of the CS and policy 2.2 of the NP, as well as the Framework, in this respect. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development respects the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits, whilst having due regard to the previous appeal. I concur with the findings of the Inspector for the previous appeal in any case.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeal proposal is contrary to the relevant policies of the Development Plan, in so far as they are consistent with the Framework. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.